....now we can just say we 'misspoke'
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...rap/index.html
I don't care how many places she'd been, words she's spoken etc....
.....I think you would remember correctly if you were UNDER SNIPER ATTACK!
What a piece of work she is.
I don't know what is worse: Our potential next Commander in Chief making up stories about being shot at in foreign countries or traveling with Sinbad "the comedian."According to an AP story at the time, Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on that trip. One of her companions, the comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he had no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.
Despite the diplomacy issues that could arise from her first claim, I'm leaning Sinbad here.
This is hilarious! She's trying to give the impression she would be a good Commander in Chief and she lies about sniper gunfire. Clinton and Obama are pretty much self destructing, and making McCain look better all the time.
I think she even exaggerated in her response:
"I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement,"
So either she lied, or she talks way too much.
She lied. Her husband talks too much!Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
HOFer
i don't know if obama is really self destructing. i think clinton has gone to the dirty campain and is trying to make obama look bad
she's going to end up taking both of them out of the running if she keeps it up
I agree on that. I haven't seen anything really negative about Obama. But the media does love him.
All hail the Ruler of the Meadow!
So hanging out in a church that hates the government and supports nutcases like Louis F and Khadafi for 15 years isn't negative? I guess earning a sweet real estate deal from a sleezebag is something we should all aim for as well.
I despise Clinton. She would do anything for power, and that isn't the kind of person I feel should represent our nation to the world.
I question Obama. The guy has potential, but his decision making to this point has been highly questionable at best.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
Obama just sealed his nomination by blocking revotes in MI & FL, states where Clinton was strong. It was a grubby excercise in old-school politics. Both revotes required buy-in by the candidates. Democrats can no longer complain about the Supreme Court intervention in Florida 2000, Obama's move was more nakedly cynical.
You might have heard that holding revotes was "changing the rules", but actually rescheduling a voided primary was completely within the letter and spirit of the rules that the Dems had established.
Most likely,you heard nothing at all about it. The media is quite infatuated with Obama. If Clinton tried a stunt like blocking a vote for political advantage, the columnists would be screaming bloody murder; cable TV would be decrying the evil, undemocratic power play by the Monster. There might be rioting in the streets.
Obama's theme of "unity" is a joke. If it meant anything at all, he would have insisted on including MI & FL voters so that he could achieve a legitimate nomination, rather than alienate a large segment of his party.
When Clinton floated the idea of sharing a ticket, Obama distorted her offer and declared indignity at being offered the VP by the trailing candidate. Clinton was not so stupid as to offer the VP, he twisted it to score points. Obama does not have a unifying instinct in his body.
Many Clinton supporters are moderates who will give John McCain a fair hearing. I don't see how Obama can win MI, FL, OH or PA next fall, electoral death for a Dem.
"Unity" is a beautiful sounding word. It also takes hard work and compromise with people you don't like. The vitriol coming from Obama supporters towards the Clinton camp makes a mockery of the slogan of Unity. If they think it is too tough to make peace within their own party, how likely are they to seek compromise with Republicans?
Poor Chelsea looks terrified. Obviously there are bullets everywhere. That was a close call.
Hillary's head is down........and she's about to use that child as a 'shield'
Don't make it sound like it was just Obama who had concerns about the FL mail-in vote. It's against FL law, the DNC had all sorts of issues with it as did the FL Democrats in charge.
MI revote is still with the legislature and they can't come to an agreement on what to do. Supporters for both candidates are making it sound like the other is blocking what should be happening.
As I said, the media loves Obama and I'm not saying he's perfect. But Hillary is more and more looking like a desperate whiner. We don't need someone like that as president.
All hail the Ruler of the Meadow!
Forget the mail-in. There was plenty of money to fund a real primary. The campaigns could have kicked-in fairly painlessly.
Obama withheld support for any revote, which is all he had to do in FL.
No revote was going forward without support from the candidates, the local politicians made clear they weren't going to be in middle of a dispute.
The Michigan revote moved further along, which called Obama's bluff. He had to openly lobby against it via his lawyer. (There were some legitimate eligibility concerns, but it was very doable on balance.) The Michigan Senate Majority Leader said when the legislature adjorned that the effort died because both candidates didn't support it.
You can call two states being unnecessarily excluded from voting as "whining." I'd say it's a major rotten jobbing. Guess people will look differently at it.
They didn't play by the established rules and they paid the price. I have no sympathy for FL or MI. If they want someone to blame, they have to look no further then their elected officials who wanted to be an important early poll and be relevant. It backfired horribly.
All hail the Ruler of the Meadow!
HOFer
the states have no one to blame but themselves for their primary votes not counting
they were told not to move the dates up or the votes wouldn't count, the states moved them up anyways
obama followed the party rules and did not campaign there and was not on the ballot. clinton broke the part rules in michigan and was on the ballot, i think she even showed up in lansing before the vote.
why did she do it, if she wasn't suppose to and if she had nothing to gain?
could it be so she could then turn around and support a revote and already have a big leg up on obama in the state by campaigning there already and by already winning a vote against no one? she would have a clear unfair advantage in the state.
to redo the vote would be like punishing obama for following the clear rules that were laid out before hand. IMO. and by obama saying "hey, rules are rules, and i followed them", clinton is spinning that to make obama look like a complete dick that doesn't want peoples votes to count.
and this is coming from a dem from michigan
and i honestly think obama would win michigan anyways. he would win detroit in a landslide where a large chunk of the population lives. or it would at least be close enough to not really matter in the overall count
clintons odds of winning at this point are very slim with the lead obama has, and she's kicking and screaming and throwing a fit about it in a desperate state. she'll go on TV and cry again, and maybe pick up a few more votes, but it won't be enough to win
and all she's doing now is hurting her parties chances of winning
Who's "they"? Do you think it is reasonable to impose punishment on 5 million voters who did nothing wrong?
And the local party officials who broke the rules aren't necessarily wrong. What is right about allowing two small states disproportionate power? And as it turns out, N.H. broke the rules too by moving their primary ahead, but the national DNC didn't have the guts to disenfranchise them.
Look, this was a screw-up the national DNC, especially Howard Dean. Remember, the republicans had the same issue to deal with, MI & FL republicans moved up too, and they came-up with a sane resolution.
Yes, but there was a simple remedy to allow the voters to have a say.
If you think it is more fair and reasonable to punish voters for their non-crime than to schedule a new vote, nothing I could say to dissuade you.
I never heard anything about Lansing, I doubt it is true, no candidate would be so foolish. The candidates took a pledge not to campaign, that's all. Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot for his own political strategy.
I saw Chris Dodd, now an Obama supporter, being asked about this issue last weekend. Turns out he had his name on ballot too, so it took him for a loop.
This "name on the ballot" misinformation just own't die.
I really can't follow your reasoning. How does a revote punish Obama? Wouldn't he benefit from a fully legitimate nomination?
And you are repeating the same misinformation. ALL 12 of the candidates followed the rules. This business of saying "rules are rules, and Obama followed them" is just a flat-out lie. I'm not saying you are a liar, but you are repeating misinformation.
If so, why did he fight the revote in MI?
He would probably win the nomination even with revotes in MI & FL. He calculated that he didn't want to take the risk, his media support would limit the blowback.
Terrible idea, a decision made in the heat of an ugly battle. Obama has split the Dem party with this tactic.
Good point. I think I'll change my vote to Republican.
Hillary's head is down........and she's about to use that child as a 'shield'
Here's what she was saying to that cute little girl. "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too".
The local party officials were wrong. They were told not to move it up or they wouldn't be counted. They ignored the DNC and now face the consequences. It's pretty damn simple.Who's "they"? Do you think it is reasonable to impose punishment on 5 million voters who did nothing wrong?
And the local party officials who broke the rules aren't necessarily wrong. What is right about allowing two small states disproportionate power? And as it turns out, N.H. broke the rules too by moving their primary ahead, but the national DNC didn't have the guts to disenfranchise them.
Look, this was a screw-up the national DNC, especially Howard Dean. Remember, the republicans had the same issue to deal with, MI & FL republicans moved up too, and they came-up with a sane resolution.
Again, the voters in MI and FL can take it out on the local party officials come election time. It does suck that their votes aren't counted, but that was the gamble those states leaders took when they held the primaries early.
Gotta follow the rules. Without rules we're just a bunch of fat, drunken, stupid, crap-flinging Bears fans.
All hail the Ruler of the Meadow!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote